On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 18:12, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > Given the level of support for Hayes's proposal, I'd very
> > much like Fielding to elaborate his position.
>
> What more is there to elaborate?
You said "I refuse to leave what has been deployed
in an unspecified state".
I, among others, asked that you give an example
of something that has been deployed and would
become unspecified by removing the constraints
on the term 'resource'.
> A paragraph that merely punts on
> the issue will engender such debates in every single working group
> that uses URIs and (as happened prior to 2396) will result in
> technologies that assume resource == file and other such garbage.
> The status quo is to leave the definition as is, since we know that
> doesn't break any real systems.
Whether removing constraints on the term 'resource' will increase
or decrease the level of debate in the future is anybody's guess.
I find it hard to believe it would get worse; for example:
[[[
I have to say that I find the various RFCs on URI syntax incredibly
difficult to follow, and in many places ambiguous or contradictory. Since
there seems to be a belief that URIs are the foundation on which the web is
built, I would be much more comfortable if the specs were rock-solid rather
than shifting sand. With the escape-uri() function (and the rules for URI
escaping in XSLT serialization) we've done the best we can, but it's pretty
flakey stuff.
]]]
-- Kay, Michael, Mar 14 2003
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2003Mar/0029.html
Whether it breaks any systems, I don't believe so. If there are
systems that it will break, all you have to do to substantiate
your position is to name one.
>
> ....Roy
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/